Page:Cambridge Modern History Volume 7.djvu/224

192 Supreme authority, where lodged. [i765- Hamilton answered Seabury, first discussing the theory of the authority of the House of Commons by way of showing that the authority of Parliament must be limited to Great Britain. The House was a check against despotism in various ways peculiar to the mother- country. The very aim of this part of the government was to secure the rights of the people, that is, the people of Great Britain. The House of Commons represented them ; their own interests were in every way connected with those of their constituents. Again, as Governor Hopkins, writing in 1765, had put it, all the powers of the House were derived from its electors, and these were persons of Great Britain ; it followed that all its authority was confined to Great Britain. " The power which one society bestows upon any man or body of men can never extend beyond its own limits." Proceeding to Seabury's proposition that supreme power must be lodged somewhere in government, Hamilton denied the inference that, unless the supreme authority be lodged in one part of the empire over all the other parts, there can be no government. Each part might enjoy a distinct, complete legislature, and still good government might prevail everywhere. It was vain to deny that two or more distinct legislatures could exist in the same State. Such a denial might hold good as regards a single community ; there could not be two legislatures in England or in New York. But it did not hold good of a number of distinct societies or bodies politic under one common head ; thus there might be one legislature in England, another in Ireland, and another in New York ; and still these several parts might form but one State. There must indeed be some connecting, pervading principle ; but that was found in the King. " His power is equal to the purpose, and his interest binds him to the due prosecution of it." How could this frustrate or obstruct government? He affirmed then that legislation was an inherent right of the colonies, not a matter of indulgence or grant. All men were equal by birth ; natural liberty was the gift of the Creator to the whole human race ; and "civil liberty is only natural liberty, modified and secured by the sanctions of civil society," which of course included legislation. Neither Parliament nor Crown had bestowed natural liberty upon the colonists, or could bestow it. (b) The British Constitution. How did Americans claim exemption from Parliament in virtue of the British Constitution ? The chief answer to that question is found in the English doctrine, running back to Magna Carta, and the various stages of representation. Property could not be taken without consent of the owner given personally or by his representatives; that was the ordinary, specific way of putting it, but the ground taken was general